INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. Arbi tration may be defined in the words of the First Hague Conference as "the settlement of differences between states by judges, of their own choice, and on the basis of respect for law." Arbitration thus differs from me diation, which is an interposition by a third party in the endeavor to reconcile opposing claims. On the other hand, arbitration dif fers from a judicial decision rendered by a court imposed upon the parties, as in the case of municipal courts in relation to the citizens of the state. It is essential to arbi tration that the judges of the dispute in question be freely chosen by the parties, and that the parties shall have obligated them selves to accept the decision rendered. At the First Hague Conference, which met in 1899, a Permanent Court of Arbitration was established. This court is permanent only in the sense that it is composed of a list, of judges, nominated by the signatory powers, from among whom the arbitrators in each individual case are to be selected by the ties to the dispute. See HAGUE TRIBUNAL.
At the Second Hague Conference, which met in 1907, a Dom was expressed calling the attention of the powers to the advisabil ity of adopting an annexed Draft Convention for the Establishment of a Court of Arbitral Justice. This court, in the words of the Con vention, is to be "freely and easily accessi ble, composed of judges representing the va rious judicial systems of the world, and •ca pable of insuring continuity in arbitral ju risprudence." It is to consist of judges and deputy judges chosen for a period of twelve years. The difficulty of reaching an agree ment as to the method of selecting the judges and the constitution of the court prevented the establishment of the court. Inasmuch as the judges are to form a permanent staff, the court is to that extent judicial rather than arbitral in character.
While a decision based upon the principles of law is generally desired by the parties to a dispute, it is not inconsistent with the ar bitration that the arbitrator should compro mise conflicting claims which it is impossible otherwise to adjust, provided, however, that the powers of the arbitrator have not been limited by the parties to a strictly legal de cision.
Arbitration was not unknown among the ancients, and many instances of its applica tion occurred between the city-states of Greece; for example, in the time of Solon five Spartans were chosen to arbitrate be tween Athens and Megara as to the posses sion of the island of Salamis. II Philipson, 127-165. While the refusal of Imperial Rome to recognize other nations as on a footing of equality made impossible the ex istence of arbitration between Rome and other states, it frequently happened that Rome intervened as arbitrator between her more or less subject nations.
In the Middle Ages the position of domi nance held by the Holy Roman Empire among the states of Europe likewise militat ed against a system of arbitration, though there are instances in which the Emperor I arbitrated between feudal lords. Moreover, the exercise by the papacy of spiritual do . minion over the states of the Christian world made it possible for the Pope to exercise the I role of mediator or arbitrator between ! Christian princes. The upheaval brought labout by the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries .caused the practice of arbi
tration to become practically obsolete, but in the closing years of the 18th century the practice was revived under the influence of the United States.
There are two general classes of arbitra tion treaties; those entered into for the set tlement, by arbitration, of a specific dispute which has arisen between two nations, and those which are entered into with the object of submitting to arbitration disputes which may arise in the future. The former are called Special Arbitration Treaties or Com, promis; the latter are called General Arbi tration Treaties. Since the First Hague Con ference Genera] Arbitration Treaties have been universally adopted. These treaties usually provide for the settlement of all dis putes of a legal nature with the exception of differences which affect the vita] interests, the independence or the honor of the two contracting parties. An early case of an agreement to arbitrate future disputes is to be found in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo entered into between the United States and Mexico on February 2, 1848. Under this treaty the two nations agreed to "endeavor, in the most sincere and earnest manner, to settle the differences so arising, and to pre serve the state of peace and friendship in which the two countries are now placing themselves, using, for this end, mutual rep-1 resentations and pacific negotiations." In case of failure, a resort shall not be had to reprisals or hostility of any kind "until the government of that which deems itself ag grieved shall have maturely considered, in the spirit of peace and good neighborship, Whether it would not be better that such dif ference should be settled by the arbitration' of commissioners appointed on each side, or by that of a friendly nation. And should such course be proposed by either party, it shall be acceded to by the other, unless deem ed by it altogether incompatible with the nature of the difference, or the circumstances of the case." The first arbitral agreement entered into by the United States was that with Great Britain under the Treaty of 1794, commonly called the Jay Treaty, which provided for three mixed commissions. One commission met in 1798 to determine what was the St. Croix River contemplated by the Treaty of Peace of 1783 as the boundary of the two countries. Another commission met In Philadelphia In 1797 to determine the compensation due British subjects in consequence of impediments which certain states of the United States had, in violation of the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, Interposed to the collection of debts by British creditors. No decision was reached and the claims were afterwards adjusted by the Treaty of January 8, 1802. The third commis sion, which finished its report in 1804, passed up on claims of citizens of the United States arising from losses and damages sustained "hy reason of irregular or illegal captures or condemnations of their vessels and other property" during the war between Great Britain and France ; and also upon of British subjects for losses sustained from captures made within the territorial waters of the United States or by French privateers armed with in the United States.